CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahar Roy (SC) 32 ITR 466, CIT v. Maddi Venkalasubbayya

325 ITR 60Reported decision#24628 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahar Roy (SC) 32 ITR 466, CIT v. Maddi Venkalasubbayya

DY CIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. MRS. NITTA VINODKUMAR JATIYA , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(1) Vs. Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Room No. 676B, 6Th Jatiya, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1, Pearl Mansion (N), Mk Road, Mumbai – 91, Marine Lines, 400020. Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Accpj8343D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Sanjiv Jain. Dr Respondent By : Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Sanjiv Jain. DRFor Respondent: Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, CC-7(1) Vs. Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Room No. 676B, 6th Jatiya, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1, Pearl Mansion (N), MK Road, Mumbai – 91, Marine Lines, 400020. MK Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ACCPJ8343D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mr.Sanjiv Jain. DR Respondent by : Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. DR Date of Hearing 15.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has filed the appeal agai…

NITA JATIYA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL REANGE-7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1815/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Nitta Jatiya (Alias Nita Jatia) Dcit, Central Circle -7(1) 1, Pearl Mansion, 91, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai - 400 020 Pan No. Accpj8343D (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Ms. Snehal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…f cultivation land and requiring the expenditure of human skill and labour on land is agricultural income as held in CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahar Roy (SC) 32 ITR 466, CIT Vs Maddi Venkalasubbayya & another (Mad) 20 lTR 151, Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd Vs PCIT (Mad)325 ITR 60.  The assessee's land is situated within the jurisdiction of Municipality of Panvel and is not assessed to land revenue. As per the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt Anand Bala Bhushan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (217 ITR 144) the produce from this land is not agricultural income.” Accordingly, the A.O on the basis of his aforesaid delibe…

PETROFARMS LIMITED ,SOUTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 340/KOL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 340/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Petrofarms Limited Vs. I.T.O Ward 8(3), Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Pan: Aabcp 5729K (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Sanjay Dixit, Cfa, Ld.Ar For The Respondent : Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit, Ld.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Dixit, CFA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143(3)

…labour on land is agricultural income. In the case of the appellant, there seems to be no expenditure incurred on human skill or on the basic operation of land cultivation. My conclusion further gets strengthen by adjudication of Hon'ble Madras High Court at 325 ITR 60 in the case of Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd. Even the sale of the agricultural products have been made to unknown parties and genuineness of the same cannot be established. In a nutshell, the activity of the appellant neither amounted to an agricultural activity to claim exemption u/ 10( 1) of the Act nor to ascertainable persons as no documentary eviden…